On Mar 13, 7:54 pm, "Sean" <hu_me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ZerkonX" <Z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.03.13.14.47.04@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:37:53 -0700, ta wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 12, 11:43 am, ZerkonX <Z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:05 -0700, ta wrote:
> >>> > What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>
> >>> Call in all debts immediately, then go from there.
>
> >> Poorly phrased question on my part.
>
> >> What I really meant was:
>
> >> If someone asks you if you are better off financially today than 10
> >> years ago, what is the most objective way to measure that?
>
> >> "Real wages" is the usual term that I have seen most, but I'm just
> >> wondering if that is universally accepted, or is there a different/
> >> better measure. "Real wages" make good sense to me, but not being an
> >> expert in economics, I'm just trying to learn if that is the best
way.
>
> > I still think the answer applies.
>
> > Wages, money in hand and all assets should be counter balanced with
debt
> > load. This gives a more objective bottom line, I think.
>
> > 'Real wages' as a gage to a current financial state, I believe, can be
> > deceptive. Same with any 'asset'. What do you actually own. Not what
can
> > you actually borrow or are borrowing. If wealth is to be measured in
> > terms of in hand money and the monetary value of assets owned, then
> > exactly who owns the assets, who actually holds the title or deed is
the
> > first question. Otherwise wealth is just faith in the ability to pay
> > debt.
>
> The above would generally apply to individual financial wealth. But is
that
> all that should be considered? I don;t think so.
>
> There is also national, natural, and lifestyle wealth/s. Such things
whilst
> less definable in $ terms, nevertheless impact greatly on one's
individual
> wealth. The notion of what is "real" is also relevant.
>
> How many simply "believe" an asset such as Shares means $X .... when in
> reality, such shares are only nominal untill actualy sold for cash or
Kind.
>
> National wealth in Assets also must include National [ shared ] Debts to
be
> deducted from it.
>
> Someone on $200k a year, who loses all health Insurance due to
unimployment,
How would they make $200K a year if they are unemployed? Also since
health care/insurance does not cost $150k a year, I would say he is
better off then the socialist dude.
> may not be as "wealthy" as someone on $50k a year in another nation who
Is this before or after their government take 50-75% of their income
as taxes?
> shares in the wealth of a Universal Health coverage that applies whether
> they are working or not.
>
> Two people of the same nominal $ wealth, where one lives in the
countryside
> of Oregan, and the other down the street from Martin Luther King
Boulevarde
> in Miami South enjoy a far different level of "true wealth" imho.
>
> A millionaire living in Florida, is far more "wealthy" than a
millionaire
> living in the Sudan in the middle of a civil war.
>
> A US soldier and his family fighting in Iraq for $100k a year, is
nowhere
> near as wealthy as Swedish soldier based in Stockholm earning only $60k
a
> year and with the same level of personal assets.
>
> The nuances about "wealth" are many and varied I think. It depends on
one's
> ideology, philosphy of life, and values.
|
